Posted on 03/31/2006 12:29:04 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
By Paul Reynolds
World Affairs correspondent, BBC News website
If the current diplomatic efforts to get Iran to suspend its nuclear fuel enrichment activities do not work, it is inevitable that at some stage, attention will be turned to discussion of a military option.
That means, in practice, an air attack against Iran's nuclear facilities by the United States and/or Israel.
The US could certainly carry out such an attack, with cruise missiles and with B-2, other Stealth bombers and B-52 bombers armed with satellite guided bombs.
However Iran's nuclear plants are widely spread out and one is buried deep underground, so an attack would need to be sustained and wide-ranging.
Israel might also be able to do it. Not long ago it bought some bunker-busting bombs from the US, but it would be much more of a challenge.
'Civilian programme'
Nobody involved in the diplomatic round says this is an active proposition at the moment.
However, President Bush has stated that the US will not accept Iran as a nuclear-armed state.
It is possible that he will interpret Iran's programme as a threat, even though Iran says it will not build a bomb but wants the technology only to make fuel for civil nuclear power. It is allowed to do make its own fuel under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Vice-President Cheney said last year that Israel might act first and "let the rest of the world worry about picking up the diplomatic pieces afterwards".
And one of the administration's leading hawks, John Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN, warned Iran recently of "painful consequences" and of using "all tools at our disposal" if its nuclear programme was not stopped.
It was perhaps significant that Mr Bolton was speaking at a meeting of Aipac, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. This is a powerful lobbying group and its priorities are closely watched to see their effect on US policies. At the moment, one of Aipac's priorities is Iran.
In the final analysis, the US might face what is being called the McCain moment. This is what Senator John McCain said: "There is only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option. That is a nuclear-armed Iran."
Red lines
However, the dilemma might be more difficult than that because Iran might not became "nuclear-armed". It might simply become nuclear-capable.
![]() |
|
The technology in question can be used for both civilian and military purposes.
If Iran does not go down the military road, and it says it will not, there will be many governments around the world who will argue that it should be allowed to enrich fuel, under inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The timetable is uncertain but an assessment by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) in Washington says that Iran might be able to assemble enough centrifuges by 2007, and enrich significant amounts of fuel by 2008.
Those could be the red lines for the US and Israel. If Iran chose to do so, and it says it will not so choose, it could be in a position to build a bomb by 2009 or 2010, according to this assessment.
Iraqi reactor raid
So would the US agree to enrichment or would it attack? Or would it concentrate on encouraging a change of government and policy in Iran and marshalling its allies into imposing sanctions?
The UN Security Council as things stand is unlikely to do much in the way of sanctions, given Russian and Chinese opposition.
Both the US and Israel have probably made contingency plans for an attack. That would be no surprise. It is what the military does in many situations.
In June 1981, the Israeli air force bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, south of Baghdad, and that raid is often used as the example of what might happen this time.
However, the raid illustrates both the feasibility of such a raid and its longer-term drawbacks.
The raid did indeed destroy the plant but it also spurred Iraq to develop a nuclear capability in secrecy - and it nearly succeeded.
'War declared'
The Israelis can argue that they achieved a delay that proved crucial. But history might not repeat itself.
Iran might, for example, simply leave the NPT, as it has the right to do, and go ahead with nuclear development anyway. That could set the scene for further attacks over a long period of time.
The United States has the capability to come out of the clear blue sky and destroy the Iranian military infrastructure
Iran might also retaliate, against US interests in Iraq and the Gulf, and might use the militant group Hezbollah in southern Lebanon to attack Israel. The region could be in uproar.
For all these reasons, and no doubt also because of the pressing US preoccupation in Iraq, the military option has not come to the fore.
There is a small group of experts and analysts, however, who think that it will come.
An article by veteran military watcher Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker in January 2005 helped lead the way.
He quoted a "former high level intelligence official" as saying: "Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign. We've declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy."
The "war" would not be an invasion of Iran but subversion leading, it would be hoped, to regime-change and an air attack if necessary. Mr Hersh indicated he felt such a subversion effort had already begun.
On this side of the Atlantic, Dan Plesch, Research Associate at the London School of Oriental and African Studies, is proclaiming the same message.
He gave a speech analysing the options recently and told the BBC News website: "The United States has the capability to come out of the clear blue sky and destroy the Iranian military infrastructure."
He went on: "You can say we are being hysterical and are a band of doom-mongers. But I fear the US has lost confidence in the UN or the EU to solve this. And it could do it militarily.
"It has reorganised its strategic forces in a doctrine known as Global Strike, meaning that from a standing start it can strike anywhere in the world in a short time. That gives it the capability."
All this does not mean it will happen. It does mean it is being debated.
Of course, the legality of any attack would be hard to justify. The British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told reporters this week: "I don't happen to believe that military action has a role to play in any event. We could not justify it under Article 51 of the UN charter which permits self defence."
In the absence of Security Council approval, the US might argue that its interests in the Gulf were at stake and that its ally Israel was at risk.
Bombing them is 26 years overdue.
No, the Israelis will use the military option.
I'm all for praying night and day up until the point that they still don't get it, then destroying their government and WMD capabilies. I'm not for rebuilding so much.
And when / if this happens it will very likely come via this route - Not much talk / hype beforehand -
But still likely a ways off from happening -
I caught that newscast on Fox last night, too. But Mara said Iran would have nukes in five years, she didn't say one way or the other whether we or Israel would bomb Iran now. Israel just had elections...I don't know what the new prime minister's stance is on defending Israel through preemptive strikes. He's not much of a conservative, though.
"No, the Israelis will use the military option."
Regardless of who attacks them, any overt attack on Iranian soil will percipitate a regional war the size of which hasn't been seen since WWII. I really don't think either Israel (new leadership) or the US has the political capital to pre-emptively attack Iran at this point in time without completely decimating Iraq's security and political situation.
"If Iran does not go down the military road, and it says it will not, there will be many governments around the world who will argue that it should be allowed to enrich fuel, under inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)."
THE AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE PROBABLY SUPPORTED NORTH KOREA'S PEACEFUL ENRICHMENT AS WELL.
The most striking apsect of this BBC article is the complete lack of recognition of the extremely severe threat from a nuclear-armed Iran to the US, Britain, and Israel. This clearly shows how the world has been dangerously lulled into complacency about nuclear weapons by 60 years of non-use of nukes and Pakistan's recent acquisition of nuclear weapons. Thank God that the reckless and exceptionally risk-tolerant Clinton Administration is gone, and that Israel will not accept a nucler-armed Iran.
There is a book,:
Unholy Alliance : Radical Islam and the American Left (Hardcover)
*******************************
And a review:
****************************************
Communism is dead. Long live Islam!, September 30, 2004
Reviewer: | Kevin Beckman (Sacramento, CA) - See all my reviews![]() |
A typo in post #10. Israel will not accept a nuclear-armed Iran.
I think a lot of these people who hate America have serious psychological conflicts with authority figures in their lives. That is why they hate America, because America is powerful and to them all forms of power represent the misuse of authority. I had a friend who was a big liberal and had a strong dislike for big business, the military, and anybody with a lot of power. She also had huge psychological conflicts going on with her father and her family was totally dysfunctional. I see that kind of stuff simmering under the surface in most of these America haters. These neocoms and America haters need psychological counseling.
We're revisiting the 1930's again pal... sending aggressors the message of weakness and confusion. We may want to walk away from the Islamo-nazi's... but they won't stop until they bring us to our knees.
The BBC would, of course, say the convicted murderer should never be allowed to acquire these weapons systems. The nuclear negotiations with Iran are exactly the same kind of situation, except that the stakes are much greater and the cost of stopping Iran is much greater than the cost of stopping the murderer from buying the weapons. The big difference in these two situations is the cost to the world to stop Iran, and it's only because of this high cost that the BBC would even consider allowing Iran to build nuclear weapons. The BBC writer and many others in the west are focused primarily on the cost of stopping Iran and they're not correctly assessing the cost of not stopping Iran and the gravity of the threat from a nuclear-armed terrorist state such as Iran. The west needs to wake up and take a long, serious, analytical look at the short-term and long-term threat to the civilized world from Iranian nuclear weapons.
I don't know about your Iraq comment -- the Iraqis and the Iranians do not like each other at all.
Ther lefties are going to get a very nasty shock if and when they ever become subjects of Sha'ria law.
"I don't know about your Iraq comment -- the Iraqis and the Iranians do not like each other at all."
You'd be surprised how folks pull together when they are fighting a common "enemy".
Especially the Feminazis......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.